Mr. Speaker, there it is. The Liberal government will actually be increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Prime Minister is fond of lecturing everyone else, but he is the process of following Stephen Harper's plan, on Stephen Harper's timeline, using Stephen Harper's targets. However, he will never be able to meet them, because he has no plan for reducing greenhouse gases. If we do not reduce greenhouse gases, anything else we do will be pointless.

When is the Prime Minister going to be able to look Canadians in the eye and say, “Yes, we are going to reduce GHGs in this country”?

Mr. Speaker, once again, the New Democrats think we are doing too much to create economic growth, and the Conservatives think we are doing too much to protect the environment.

We are moving forward with a responsible plan that acknowledges our commitments under the Paris agreement as well as our responsibilities towards our children's future, and we are protecting the environment in a responsible way by creating the jobs of the future.

That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we are always going to do.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents understand the importance of having sound evidence on which to base our decisions, the decisions that will affect the health and safety of Canadians. Our government was elected on a promise to restore evidence-based decision-making, beginning with the appointment of a chief science advisor, a position abolished by the previous government.

Could the Prime Minister update the House on the important developments with this position?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was proud and delighted to announce, along with the Minister of Science, Canada's new chief science advisor, Dr. Mona Nemer. Dr. Nemer is a distinguished Canadian health researcher and a leading academic executive at the University of Ottawa. As chief science advisor, she will provide impartial scientific advice to me and the Minister of Science so we can make better decisions, based on evidence, on health and environmental issues that affect all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, if I were defending that plan, I think I might just sit down and be quiet as well. This is a plan that would impose a double tax on the passive savings that small business owners use to fund their retirement. That tax can reach as high as 73%. That double tax would not apply to the millionaire owners of multinational companies trading on Bay Street. Why not?

Mr. Speaker, we are proud that Canada has competitive corporate tax rates. Indeed, it is part of our advantage. If the members opposite want to propose to raise corporate tax rates, they can do so in their next election platform. Until that time, we will continue to focus on growing the economy, supporting small businesses, and helping the middle class and those working hard to join it. That is what Canadians asked us to do. That is what we are going to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in raising taxes on anyone. The member across the way believes in raising them on middle-class small business owners, putting them at a comparative disadvantage versus the wealthiest multinational corporations that trade on Bay Street, companies like Morneau Shepell. Those companies will now be able to outbid our middle-class small business owners and farmers for assets in the marketplace. Why is the Prime Minister creating distortions that favour the wealthiest elite at the expense of the middle class?

Mr. Speaker, the only distortions are the ones brought forward by the member opposite, who is trying to scare small business owners and torque an issue to defend the approach the Conservatives have always taken of benefiting the wealthy and ignoring the hard-working Canadians who will work every day to build this country.

We committed to help the middle class and those working hard to join it, and that is what we are doing.

I might ask the member opposite why he voted against lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1%. That is something we are proud we did. Unfortunately, the members opposite voted against it.

Actually, I did not vote against that, Mr. Speaker; I voted against a plan that has seen the wealthiest Canadians pay less and the average middle-class Canadian pay $800 more.

What I voted in favour of was the previous government's plan to lift a million people off the tax rolls altogether and to reduce the tax rate on people earning $30,000 a year by 80%. That is what I voted for.

The Prime Minister is imposing a plan that will apply to every single person who owns a private business, including those with low income. It does not apply to the wealthiest shareholders, including those in his cabinet. Why not?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been listening to the consultations, as we have, and has been talking with Canadians and engaging in a broad range of listening activities with folks. However, it disturbs me that he still thinks that we are applying this to every single small business owner. We are looking at the fact that wealthy individuals use private corporations to pay lower tax rates than middle-class Canadians. That is not fair.

We are going to continue to support small businesses and help middle-class Canadians. It is what we got elected to do. It is what we are going to stay focused on, despite all the fears from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister please point to the section or the clause in his proposed legislation, or the sentence in his consultation paper, in which it clearly states that no one earning less than $150,000 a year will pay any of these new taxes?

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to engage in ongoing consultations with Canadians on the details of how to move forward in the best way so that we make the tax system fairer. However, at the core of this government is a promise to support the middle class and those working hard to join it, and to help small businesses succeed in an increasingly disruptive globalized world. We are focused on helping Canadians, because for 10 years that government focused on the wealthiest.

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister really want us to look at the promises he has made? Let us look at another one of his promises. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered the Prime Minister three times to put an end to the racial discrimination against first nations children.

Rather than comply, the Prime Minister insists on fighting indigenous children.

Why is the Prime Minister so determined to perpetuate his government's discrimination against first nations children?

Mr. Speaker, no relationship is more important to this government than our relationship with first nations and indigenous people. That is why we allocated an unprecedented $8.4 billion in our first year and $5 billion the following year to provide services to indigenous youth and to address the completely unacceptable gaps in these services.

We know that there is a lot of work to do, and we will keep on doing it. Our new Minister of Indigenous Services has my full confidence; she will continue to keep that long-awaited promise and give our indigenous youth a better future.

Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. The Prime Minister promised a nation-to-nation relationship and to stop taking first nations children to court. Rather than comply with the Human Rights Tribunal's three separate rulings, two years into his mandate he is still spending millions of dollars to fight first nations children in court. That is the reality.

What those children want to know is this: why is the Prime Minister still fighting them in court?

Mr. Speaker, we have significantly increased support to first nations education and to young indigenous people in difficult situations, but we know there is a lot more work to do. That is why we have taken the historic, concrete step toward moving beyond the Indian Act once and for all by separating Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada into two distinct departments, one for the nation-to-nation relationships and the other for indigenous service delivery.

This is a meaningful, concrete step that is going to make a real impact in the lives and the future of millions of Canadians across this country.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government paid $437,000 to former Liberal candidate Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux for only a few months of work. This former Liberal candidate is very unapologetic with regard to this gesture. However, Cindy Blackstock described this half-million-dollar cash grab as nothing more than a public relations exercise. There appears to be a discrepancy in viewpoints here.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his former candidate or with Cindy Blackstock?

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to completely overhauling child and family services in full partnership with first nations communities. The minister's special representative has met with over 26 chiefs, experts, officials, advocates, and individuals with lived experience from coast to coast to coast to inform our commitment to first nations child welfare reform.

We look forward to receiving her report and recommendations on how we can transform the system to better support and reflect the needs of first nations children and put their well-being first.

Mr. Speaker, close to half a million dollars is an extraordinary amount of money for what appears to be a public relations exercise. That is what Cindy Blackstock said when trying to understand the payment of $500,000 to a failed Liberal candidate and Liberal Party donor for eight months of work. The Prime Minister rewarded his entitled friend with a gold-plated contract, while indigenous children continue to go without needed care.

Will the Prime Minister admit that $500,000 would have been better spent directly on the needs of Canada's indigenous children, rather than going into the pocket of a Liberal insider?

Mr. Speaker, moving forward with a nation-to-nation relationship in the spirit of reconciliation means consulting. It means listening to the affected people to understand how best to move forward.

That is why the special representative has met with 26 chiefs, experts, officials, advocates, and individuals with extraordinary lived experiences from coast to coast to coast to inform how we are moving forward on completely renewing child and family services for first nations communities.

Mr. Speaker, here is another question on the Liberals' wastage of hard-earned tax dollars in trying to cover up political problems. There was $10 million in an attempted secret payoff to Omar Khadr, millions to fight indigenous children and women in court, and almost half a million dollars to a defeated Liberal candidate for a PR campaign to fight a tribunal ruling in favour of indigenous children.

Why is the Prime Minister robbing the middle class to pay for Liberal profligacy?

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member opposite's outrage at the settlement in the Omar Khadr case. I understand Canadians' outrage. I understand how angry I am that we had to settle that.

The fact is that we should all be outraged, and remain outraged, that Canadian governments violated a Canadian's fundamental rights. If we stay angry enough for long enough, maybe no future government will ever violate a Canadian's fundamental rights that way again.

Mr. Speaker, the World Anti-Doping Agency is located in Montreal. It is a very important organization, given its mission. Not only does it create good jobs in Montreal, but it also enhances its reputation on the world stage.

Could the member for Papineau, the Prime Minister, please tell the House and Canadians about what the government has done to ensure that this agency stays in Montreal well into the future?

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people across Atlantic Canada have been coming out to town halls and public consultations because they are legitimately concerned about the Prime Minister's own proposals.

They know this is going to have such a negative impact, because so many of them are local business owners. These use these measures legitimately to pass on the family farm or the fishing boat.

Today, all four Atlantic opposition leaders are denouncing the Prime Minister's plan, because they know that under his administration, middle-class Canadians are paying more. It is even worse in Atlantic Canada, where provincial Liberal taxes are already killing jobs and opportunities.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to his Atlantic Canadian friends, and even his own caucus, and cancel these unfair tax hikes?